Immigration, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution
Many "progressive" opponents of the Arizona immigration law are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government.
That foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government is commonly asserted. But it is a myth – at least if one respects the Constitution’s text and original understanding.
First, the Constitution gives the federal government supreme authority over foreign policy. Congress and the President can pre-empt an issue by exercising one or more of their enumerated powers. If Congress dislikes a state action in that realm, Congress can pass a law overriding it.
If, however, Congress has not acted or acted incompletely, the states have certain reserved powers to act on their own. In other words, the Constitution acknowledges concurrent, although subordinate, state authority over foreign affairs – including immigration.
How do we know this? From both the constitutional text and from the record left by those who debated and ratified the Constitution.
The Colonial Flag
Monday, May 3, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
What to do About National Healthcare? Nullify Now!
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.
Guess what – they were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out – but yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish – and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.
The problem we face today is not about personalities or political parties – it’s about power. Until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Who's Supreme? The Supremacy Clause Smackdown!
When Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the "national" news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed.
The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional "scholar" David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.
In his words, "That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this." Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.
Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law "scholars," but he is far from correct, and Idaho and the thirty seven other States considering similar legislation have a strong case based on the original intent of the powers of the federal government vis-a-vis the States.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Nullify the Bill: Invoke the 10th!
by Brian Roberts
The federal government takeover of the health care industry and your loss of medical freedom only lacks a Presidential signature to become a federal law. We the people know that this cannot stand if America is to remain a free country. Keep your head up, it is time to invoke the 10th and kill this bill and the others soon to follow once and for all.
From here on, resolve will be the key. Not just your resolve, but the resolve of the rest of the citizens in your state. So it’s our responsibility to educate neighbors and make sure the right state representatives are in place.
In order for us to reset this country and return to spending time with our businesses, families and hobbies; we must again in no uncertain terms confirm the revolutionary message that the people are the source of power. The federal government must fear the people, and the state governments are the legal method in which to achieve this goal. Jefferson clarified the goal:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Ignore the Feds, Empower the States.
by Brian Roberts
The federal government takeover of the health care industry and your loss of medical freedom only lacks a Presidential signature to become a federal law. We the people know that this cannot stand if America is to remain a free country. Keep your head up, it is time to invoke the 10th and kill this bill and the others soon to follow once and for all.
From here on, resolve will be the key. Not just your resolve, but the resolve of the rest of the citizens in your state. So it’s our responsibility to educate neighbors and make sure the right state representatives are in place.
In order for us to reset this country and return to spending time with our businesses, families and hobbies; we must again in no uncertain terms confirm the revolutionary message that the people are the source of power. The federal government must fear the people, and the state governments are the legal method in which to achieve this goal. Jefferson clarified the goal:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Ignore the Feds, Empower the States.
Monday, March 1, 2010
It's Not About Political Parties. It's About Liberty.
by Michael Boldin
The Tenth Amendment is not about political parties. It’s not about political ideologies. It’s not even about political candidates. It’s about liberty. It was designed to promote your liberty by strictly limiting the powers of the federal government.Over the past year or so, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN, or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, “What political party do you support?” Each time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government.”They always have virtually the same follow up question too – “what about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political background, what political party do you support?”“None,” I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s true.I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.All I am is me, and all I want is to live free.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
A Warning To The Tea Party Nation
By Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2010/cbarchive_20100212.html
As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America
is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It
reminds me of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed
both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been
over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and
Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.
Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young,
energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to
return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the
constitutional precepts of limited government. I'm talking about
then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob
Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C. Watts, etc. These
young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the
growth and size of the federal government.
The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots
activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted "Contract with
America" (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt
Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they
would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5
federal departments--such as the Departments of Energy and Education--and
many federal agencies.
Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single
federal department or agency--or even shrink the size of the federal
government at all--it expanded the size and scope of the federal government
at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons
posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative
Revolution of 1994.
If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I'm
talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who
thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything
to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with
any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too,
some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big
Government toadies themselves. Such is the power of that Putrid Province by
the Potomac.)
The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution
of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb
to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already
appearing.
First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential
campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents
and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the
same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same
old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment
Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were
tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans
and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign
policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New
World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the
bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.
I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State
after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries
back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an
Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I
was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C.,
to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.
But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and
embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even
Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in
danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your
friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost
single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans.
Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government
neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere
conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand. But if one
wants a real barometer of Palin's true colors, look no further than her
endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.
Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in
office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas?
Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for
State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American
Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama's
universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the
citizens of Texas against an emerging Police State? Nothing! What has he
done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!
As a result of both Rick Perry's establishment business-as-usual politics in
Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking
establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas
governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already
knows, Medina is one of you.
Medina is committed to preserving Texas' independence and sovereignty. She
is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will
give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to
get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA
superhighway. Medina is the real deal.
So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I'm
sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in
hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits
is not what the Tea Parties are all about.
Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics,
supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government
and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the
IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity
back into government.
Don't get me wrong; there are things about Sarah Palin that I like. I
especially appreciate her pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands. I also
appreciate her signing the Alaska State sovereignty resolution while she was
governor. By all indications, she did a good job as Alaska's chief
executive. At the national level, however, she favors the Patriot Act--and
even wants to expand it. She supported the banker bailouts. And when it
comes to foreign policy issues, Palin is just another neocon. Plus, as with
most Republicans at the national level, I think she is clueless about the
NWO. And please remember, it was Mr. New World Order himself, Henry
Kissinger, who vetted Palin on behalf of McCain.
The Tea Party Nation should expect better!
The Nation also needs to be careful about Glenn Beck. He says many of the
right things. He is likeable and charismatic; but he's also dead wrong on a
number of issues--issues that are critical to the Tea Party Nation. He's
dead wrong when he attempts to disparage and impugn Congressman Ron Paul,
saying Dr. Paul is a "crazy, kooky guy." He's dead wrong in supporting the
banker bailouts. He's dead wrong when he supports raising taxes (which he
has done on several occasions). He was dead wrong when he supported the
Patriot Act. He is dead wrong when he viciously attacks the 9/11 victims'
families who demand further information about what happened to their loved
ones on that fateful day. And he is dead wrong when he mocks people such as
Alan Keyes and Joe Farah for demanding that Barack Obama release his birth
certificate--if he indeed has one.
And now I hear that there are some self-professed members of the Tea Party
Nation who are actually running for Congressman Paul's US House seat in
Texas. If this is not a sign that establishment Republicans are hijacking
the Tea Party movement, I don't know what is. Remember, the Tea Party
movement began as a support base for the Ron Paul Revolution back in 2007.
I strongly encourage the Tea Party faithful to read Jane Hamsher's recent
column on this subject:
http://tinyurl.com/tea-party-soul
I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You
are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles.
Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive
wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting
for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing
the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of
people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name"
celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on
keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles
intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994,
avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
(c) Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2010/cbarchive_20100212.html
As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America
is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It
reminds me of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed
both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been
over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and
Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.
Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young,
energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to
return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the
constitutional precepts of limited government. I'm talking about
then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob
Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C. Watts, etc. These
young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the
growth and size of the federal government.
The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots
activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted "Contract with
America" (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt
Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they
would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5
federal departments--such as the Departments of Energy and Education--and
many federal agencies.
Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single
federal department or agency--or even shrink the size of the federal
government at all--it expanded the size and scope of the federal government
at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons
posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative
Revolution of 1994.
If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I'm
talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who
thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything
to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with
any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too,
some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big
Government toadies themselves. Such is the power of that Putrid Province by
the Potomac.)
The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution
of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb
to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already
appearing.
First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential
campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents
and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the
same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same
old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment
Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were
tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans
and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign
policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New
World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the
bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.
I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State
after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries
back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an
Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I
was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C.,
to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.
But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and
embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even
Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in
danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your
friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost
single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans.
Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government
neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere
conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand. But if one
wants a real barometer of Palin's true colors, look no further than her
endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.
Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in
office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas?
Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for
State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American
Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama's
universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the
citizens of Texas against an emerging Police State? Nothing! What has he
done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!
As a result of both Rick Perry's establishment business-as-usual politics in
Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking
establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas
governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already
knows, Medina is one of you.
Medina is committed to preserving Texas' independence and sovereignty. She
is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will
give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to
get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA
superhighway. Medina is the real deal.
So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I'm
sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in
hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits
is not what the Tea Parties are all about.
Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics,
supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government
and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the
IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity
back into government.
Don't get me wrong; there are things about Sarah Palin that I like. I
especially appreciate her pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands. I also
appreciate her signing the Alaska State sovereignty resolution while she was
governor. By all indications, she did a good job as Alaska's chief
executive. At the national level, however, she favors the Patriot Act--and
even wants to expand it. She supported the banker bailouts. And when it
comes to foreign policy issues, Palin is just another neocon. Plus, as with
most Republicans at the national level, I think she is clueless about the
NWO. And please remember, it was Mr. New World Order himself, Henry
Kissinger, who vetted Palin on behalf of McCain.
The Tea Party Nation should expect better!
The Nation also needs to be careful about Glenn Beck. He says many of the
right things. He is likeable and charismatic; but he's also dead wrong on a
number of issues--issues that are critical to the Tea Party Nation. He's
dead wrong when he attempts to disparage and impugn Congressman Ron Paul,
saying Dr. Paul is a "crazy, kooky guy." He's dead wrong in supporting the
banker bailouts. He's dead wrong when he supports raising taxes (which he
has done on several occasions). He was dead wrong when he supported the
Patriot Act. He is dead wrong when he viciously attacks the 9/11 victims'
families who demand further information about what happened to their loved
ones on that fateful day. And he is dead wrong when he mocks people such as
Alan Keyes and Joe Farah for demanding that Barack Obama release his birth
certificate--if he indeed has one.
And now I hear that there are some self-professed members of the Tea Party
Nation who are actually running for Congressman Paul's US House seat in
Texas. If this is not a sign that establishment Republicans are hijacking
the Tea Party movement, I don't know what is. Remember, the Tea Party
movement began as a support base for the Ron Paul Revolution back in 2007.
I strongly encourage the Tea Party faithful to read Jane Hamsher's recent
column on this subject:
http://tinyurl.com/tea-party-soul
I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You
are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles.
Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive
wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting
for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing
the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of
people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name"
celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on
keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles
intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994,
avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Political Asylum Ruling Expected Today for German Homeschooling Family
By Peter J. SmithMEMPHIS, Tennessee, January 20, 2010
A federal immigration judge in Memphis is expected to issue a ruling today on the case of a German family that applied for political asylum after suffering persecution from the German government over homeschooling their children.Uwe and Hannelore Romeike fled Germany and sought safe haven within the United States in 2008 after enduring years of punishment from the German government for educating their five children at home in conformity with their Christian values – a legal crime in Germany. "The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has dramatically intensified," said HSLDA staff attorney Michael P. Donnelly. "They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, threatened with imprisonment, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate."Although Germany is a modern social democracy, the nation retains statist attitudes formed by the National Socialists during the Third Reich regarding the rights of families. In order to bring about the uniform educational and social formation of the youth by the state, the Jugendamt (Youth Welfare Office) was created, and Germany outlawed homeschooling through a compulsory education law. The laws outlawing homeschooling remained on the books in Germany after the demise of Hitler’s Germany, but German officials for the most part maintained a policy of salutary neglect as late as 2002, when the Education Minister of the time stated the government would not crack down on the homeschooling minority since their children “are generally not lacking in any other respects.”But even then a marked sea-change in the government’s attitude was underway, and by 2006, the succeeding Education Minister K. Horstmann, made clear its policy. He warned homeschooling families: “The education administration in future will also not recognize so-called homeschooling and act in proportionate measure considering the individual case and circumstances.” For Uwe and Hannelore Romeike that meant enduring thousands of euros in crippling fines, threats of prison time, and in October 2006, Jugendamt officials made good on their threat to seize their children and place them in a local state-run school.The persecution faced by the Romeikes, however, is typical of the suffering faced by homeschooling families, some of whom have also had the traumatizing experience of armed police storming their homes at night to take their children away. However, Christian parents have persisted in homeschooling, saying that they want to keep their children free from the corrupting influence of the state-run schools, which they say have been peddling occultism, secular values, and grossly explicit sex education. "We left family members, our home, and a wonderful community in Germany, but the well-being of our children made it necessary," said Uwe Romeike.Hannelore Romeike praised the freedom that they now enjoy to educate their children at home in Tennessee. "The freedom we have to homeschool our children in Tennessee is wonderful,” said Romeike. “We don't have to worry about looking over our shoulder anymore wondering when the youth welfare officials will come or how much money we have to pay in fines.”"If the political asylum application is granted it will be the first time America has ever granted political asylum to Christian homeschoolers fleeing from German persecution," said Donnelly. Donnelly hopes that if the court grants the Romeike’s asylum, it will put more pressure on Germany to back down from its persecution of homeschoolers or face international embarrassment. A positive ruling could also pave the way for other homeschooling families to apply for political asylum in the United States.
A federal immigration judge in Memphis is expected to issue a ruling today on the case of a German family that applied for political asylum after suffering persecution from the German government over homeschooling their children.Uwe and Hannelore Romeike fled Germany and sought safe haven within the United States in 2008 after enduring years of punishment from the German government for educating their five children at home in conformity with their Christian values – a legal crime in Germany. "The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has dramatically intensified," said HSLDA staff attorney Michael P. Donnelly. "They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, threatened with imprisonment, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate."Although Germany is a modern social democracy, the nation retains statist attitudes formed by the National Socialists during the Third Reich regarding the rights of families. In order to bring about the uniform educational and social formation of the youth by the state, the Jugendamt (Youth Welfare Office) was created, and Germany outlawed homeschooling through a compulsory education law. The laws outlawing homeschooling remained on the books in Germany after the demise of Hitler’s Germany, but German officials for the most part maintained a policy of salutary neglect as late as 2002, when the Education Minister of the time stated the government would not crack down on the homeschooling minority since their children “are generally not lacking in any other respects.”But even then a marked sea-change in the government’s attitude was underway, and by 2006, the succeeding Education Minister K. Horstmann, made clear its policy. He warned homeschooling families: “The education administration in future will also not recognize so-called homeschooling and act in proportionate measure considering the individual case and circumstances.” For Uwe and Hannelore Romeike that meant enduring thousands of euros in crippling fines, threats of prison time, and in October 2006, Jugendamt officials made good on their threat to seize their children and place them in a local state-run school.The persecution faced by the Romeikes, however, is typical of the suffering faced by homeschooling families, some of whom have also had the traumatizing experience of armed police storming their homes at night to take their children away. However, Christian parents have persisted in homeschooling, saying that they want to keep their children free from the corrupting influence of the state-run schools, which they say have been peddling occultism, secular values, and grossly explicit sex education. "We left family members, our home, and a wonderful community in Germany, but the well-being of our children made it necessary," said Uwe Romeike.Hannelore Romeike praised the freedom that they now enjoy to educate their children at home in Tennessee. "The freedom we have to homeschool our children in Tennessee is wonderful,” said Romeike. “We don't have to worry about looking over our shoulder anymore wondering when the youth welfare officials will come or how much money we have to pay in fines.”"If the political asylum application is granted it will be the first time America has ever granted political asylum to Christian homeschoolers fleeing from German persecution," said Donnelly. Donnelly hopes that if the court grants the Romeike’s asylum, it will put more pressure on Germany to back down from its persecution of homeschoolers or face international embarrassment. A positive ruling could also pave the way for other homeschooling families to apply for political asylum in the United States.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Burning Light of Freedom
by Lesley Swann
Assaulting the dream left to us by our Founders, we now have proponents of a nanny state who would have us give up our freedoms because they say it is too hard to be free. It is too hard being free to make a living, so instead we should have the government take from those who do earn and redistribute it to us. It is too hard to be free raise a family on our own as we see fit, so we should abdicate our roles as parents and let the government school systems and day cares raise our children as they see fit. It is too hard to be free to provide for our own health care and retirement in the best manner for us as individuals, so we should just abandon personal responsibility and choice, instead settling for a blanket one-size-fits-none health care plan that tells us what is best for us. Would Americans really rather be lazy than free?The Founders weren’t willing to sacrifice their freedoms just because times were tough and they would be appalled today that some Americans are willing to lay down their hard-won freedoms because of sheer laziness. Welfare, government-run health care, and a cradle-to-grave nanny state is NOT freedom, it is the essence of captivity and tyranny.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The United States is NOT a Nation!
by Brion McClanahan
John Adams once wrote that, “I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States….” Each state had its own political and cultural life and each was “sovereign.” Robert Yates, writing as Brutus in 1787, observed that “In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this not be the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."States’ rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution were intended to protect this cultural distinctiveness. This is why the three most powerful States in 1788, Virginia in the South, New York in the mid-Atlantic, and Massachusetts in the North, considered an explicit recognition of States’ rights an essential condition for ratification of the Constitution.Of course, those who champion States’ rights and decentralization are often accused of preferring “Balkanization” over the blessings and security of “one nation.” If the federal government followed its limited, constituted authority, such “Balkanization” would not be necessary, but hardly anyone in the founding generation would have agreed to a system of central government that currently exists in the United States.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Efforts to Boost Birth Rate Failing in China
By Hilary White
December 16, 2009
The city of Shanghai's efforts to reverse more than 30 years of anti-child government propaganda, and boost the city's flagging birth rate are not being well received by the public, a report in the Washington Post says.
The Chinese government is allowing couples to have second children and are considering more easing of the country's one-child policy. But the results of the new permissions, some officials say, have been disappointing.
In Shanghai, posters and leaflets telling people how to apply for permits to have more children have replaced anti-child propaganda, but, officials complain, the number of births in the city in 2010 is not expected to rise significantly.
Despite these efforts, in Huinan township, with a population of 115,000, officials only receive four to five applications for children a month and in Shanghai the number of births in the city in 2010 is still expected to be only about 165,000, lower than 2008.
The Post quoted Shanghai residents Wang Weijia and her husband who said that they had no intention of having another child. "We have already given all our time and energy for just one child. We have none left for a second," said Wang.
According to UN reports, since the implementation of the policy in 1979, the birth rate in China has plummeted from an average of six children per woman to the current rate of 1.8. The number of people over 60 is expected to grow from 16.7 per cent of the population in 2020 to 31.1 per cent by 2050. Last year, people 60 and older accounted for almost 22 per cent of Shanghai's registered residents.
The Post quotes Xie Lingli, director of the Shanghai Municipal Population and Family Planning Commission, who said that fertile couples need to have babies to "help reduce the proportion of the aging population and alleviate a workforce shortage in the future."
Shanghai will become "as old, though not as rich, as developed countries such as Japan and Sweden," she said.
At the same time, Chinese delegates to the UN conference on climate change currently underway in Copenhagen, have defended their country's policy saying it has helped them to reduce carbon emissions. The Copenhagen conference opened at the same time as the UN Population Fund released a report calling for the reduction of the human population in the interest of the environment.
December 16, 2009
The city of Shanghai's efforts to reverse more than 30 years of anti-child government propaganda, and boost the city's flagging birth rate are not being well received by the public, a report in the Washington Post says.
The Chinese government is allowing couples to have second children and are considering more easing of the country's one-child policy. But the results of the new permissions, some officials say, have been disappointing.
In Shanghai, posters and leaflets telling people how to apply for permits to have more children have replaced anti-child propaganda, but, officials complain, the number of births in the city in 2010 is not expected to rise significantly.
Despite these efforts, in Huinan township, with a population of 115,000, officials only receive four to five applications for children a month and in Shanghai the number of births in the city in 2010 is still expected to be only about 165,000, lower than 2008.
The Post quoted Shanghai residents Wang Weijia and her husband who said that they had no intention of having another child. "We have already given all our time and energy for just one child. We have none left for a second," said Wang.
According to UN reports, since the implementation of the policy in 1979, the birth rate in China has plummeted from an average of six children per woman to the current rate of 1.8. The number of people over 60 is expected to grow from 16.7 per cent of the population in 2020 to 31.1 per cent by 2050. Last year, people 60 and older accounted for almost 22 per cent of Shanghai's registered residents.
The Post quotes Xie Lingli, director of the Shanghai Municipal Population and Family Planning Commission, who said that fertile couples need to have babies to "help reduce the proportion of the aging population and alleviate a workforce shortage in the future."
Shanghai will become "as old, though not as rich, as developed countries such as Japan and Sweden," she said.
At the same time, Chinese delegates to the UN conference on climate change currently underway in Copenhagen, have defended their country's policy saying it has helped them to reduce carbon emissions. The Copenhagen conference opened at the same time as the UN Population Fund released a report calling for the reduction of the human population in the interest of the environment.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
America Under Barack Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Interview with Nat Hentoff
By John W. Whitehead
December 11, 2009
"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most
dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff
(Embedded image moved to file: pic19066.jpg)Nat Hentoff
Nat Hentoff has had a life well spent, one chock full of controversy
fueled by his passion for the protection of civil liberties and human
rights. Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist,
anti-death penalty advocate, pro-lifer and not uncommon critic of the
ideological left.
At 84, Nat Hentoff is an American classic who has never shied away from an
issue. For example, he defended a woman rejected from law school because
she was Caucasian; called into a talk show hosted by Oliver North to agree
with him on liberal intolerance for free speech; was a friend to the late
Malcolm X; and wrote the liner notes for Bob Dylan's second album.
A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a
“Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has
angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has
stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the
trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to
abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation
of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles
(He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any
president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our
liberties.").
Born in Boston on June 10, 1925, Hentoff received a B.A. with honors from
Northeastern University and did graduate work at Harvard. From 1953 to
1957, he was associate editor of Down Beat magazine. He has written many
books on jazz, biographies and novels, including children's books. His
articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times,
Commonwealth, the New Republic, the Atlantic and the New Yorker, where he
was a staff writer for more than 25 years. In 1980, he was awarded a
Guggenheim Fellowship in Education and an American Bar Association Silver
Gavel Award for his coverage of the law and criminal justice in his
columns. In 1985, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws by
Northeastern University. For 50 years, Hentoff wrote a weekly column for
the Village Voice. But that publication announced that he had been
terminated on December 31, 2008. In February 2009, Hentoff joined the Cato
Institute as a Senior Fellow.
Hentoff's views on the rights of Americans to write, think and speak
freely are expressed in his columns. He is also an authority on First
Amendment defense, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, students' rights
and education. Friends and critics alike describe him as the kind of
writer, and citizen, that all should aspire to be—"less interested in
'exclusives' than in 'making a difference.'" Critiquing Hentoff's
autobiography, Speaking Freely, Nicholas von Hoffman refers to him as "a
trusting man, a gentle man, just and undeviatingly consistent."
Hentoff took to heart the words from his mentor, I. F. "Izzy" Stone, the
renowned investigative journalist who died in 1989: "If you're in this
business because you want to change the world, get another day job. If you
are able to make a difference, it will come incrementally, and you might
not even know about it. You have to get the story and keep on it because
it has to be told."
Nat Hentoff has earned the well-deserved reputation of being one of our
nation's most respected, controversial and uncompromising writers. He
began his career at the Village Voice because he wanted a place to write
freely on anything he cared about. And his departure from the publication
has neither dampened his zeal nor tempered his voice.
Hentoff, whose new book, At the Jazz Band Ball—Sixty Years on the Jazz
Scene (University of California Press), is due out in 2010, took some time
to speak with me about Barack Obama, the danger of his health care plan,
the peril of civil liberties, and a host of other issues.
John W. Whitehead: When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he
introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he
has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?
Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the
most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is
ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the
way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system.
If the American people have their health care paid for by the government,
depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a
health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives
are worth living much longer.
In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he
would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his
promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA
renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be
interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore?
Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine
which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush
administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought
might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the
case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though
he promised not to.
So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a
phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he
will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a
very dangerous mindset for a president to have.
JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?
NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little
qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he
lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on
people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were
led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense,
"evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms
of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the
University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing
weakens the Constitution.
In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The
Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the
National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of
everything we do on the phone and on the internet. Obama has done nothing
about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial
supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.
JW: Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in
light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is
that?
NH: I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced
by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has
taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't
think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom
they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course,
that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They
are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change.
Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama
are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."
JW: Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what
some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?
NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care
bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a
certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their
end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was
done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them. The
death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be
the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote
a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.
In England, you have what I would call government-imposed euthanasia.
Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides
whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government
should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not
doing it and you gradually or suddenly die. The present Stimulus Bill sets
up the equivalent commission in the United States similar to that which is
in England. The tipoff was months ago on the ABC network. President Obama
was given a full hour to describe and endorse his health plan. A woman in
the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101
years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor
didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and
told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked
President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said
we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation. He said I would
advise her to take a pain killer. That is the essence of the President of
the United States.
JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?
NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except
to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in
his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone—both a constitutional backbone
and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us
a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally
because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has
scared me in terms of my lifespan.
JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people
believe things just by his personality.
NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted
for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people
voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this
country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him
and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could
elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on.
Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the
black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are
wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for
the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be
sinking in.
JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among
African-Americans.
NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for
a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching
stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual,
the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are
going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This
is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the
unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I
can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.
JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government
does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them
anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has
criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?
NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel
Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did
in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had
Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We
need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is
what is happening with the Tea Parties. I wrote a column called "The
Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for
themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout
the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot
of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they
are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.
JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test
while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions
are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote
the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is
basically dead.
NH: I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on
education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William
Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the
words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?" Well, it is
not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell
them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of
Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern
in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with
each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.
Young people get very excited when they hear why they are Americans. It is
not hard to do. We hear talk now about reforming public education. There
are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard
Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic
illiteracy in the country.
JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.
NH: A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of
Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment.
I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One
student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe
these are bright students.
JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name
the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.
NH: That is a stunner.
JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than
it was then?
NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone
too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in
America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government
knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The
government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen
in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a
long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say,
and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the
technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.
JW: You don't sound very optimistic.
NH: If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and
they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize
the country.
The media has been very bad about informing us about what is going on.
They focus on surface things. They do not focus enough on the fact that
the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to
transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on. But
I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why
you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because
we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who
are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And
we need to encourage others to become involved.
An Interview with Nat Hentoff
By John W. Whitehead
December 11, 2009
"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most
dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff
(Embedded image moved to file: pic19066.jpg)Nat Hentoff
Nat Hentoff has had a life well spent, one chock full of controversy
fueled by his passion for the protection of civil liberties and human
rights. Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist,
anti-death penalty advocate, pro-lifer and not uncommon critic of the
ideological left.
At 84, Nat Hentoff is an American classic who has never shied away from an
issue. For example, he defended a woman rejected from law school because
she was Caucasian; called into a talk show hosted by Oliver North to agree
with him on liberal intolerance for free speech; was a friend to the late
Malcolm X; and wrote the liner notes for Bob Dylan's second album.
A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a
“Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has
angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has
stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the
trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to
abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation
of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles
(He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any
president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our
liberties.").
Born in Boston on June 10, 1925, Hentoff received a B.A. with honors from
Northeastern University and did graduate work at Harvard. From 1953 to
1957, he was associate editor of Down Beat magazine. He has written many
books on jazz, biographies and novels, including children's books. His
articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times,
Commonwealth, the New Republic, the Atlantic and the New Yorker, where he
was a staff writer for more than 25 years. In 1980, he was awarded a
Guggenheim Fellowship in Education and an American Bar Association Silver
Gavel Award for his coverage of the law and criminal justice in his
columns. In 1985, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws by
Northeastern University. For 50 years, Hentoff wrote a weekly column for
the Village Voice. But that publication announced that he had been
terminated on December 31, 2008. In February 2009, Hentoff joined the Cato
Institute as a Senior Fellow.
Hentoff's views on the rights of Americans to write, think and speak
freely are expressed in his columns. He is also an authority on First
Amendment defense, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, students' rights
and education. Friends and critics alike describe him as the kind of
writer, and citizen, that all should aspire to be—"less interested in
'exclusives' than in 'making a difference.'" Critiquing Hentoff's
autobiography, Speaking Freely, Nicholas von Hoffman refers to him as "a
trusting man, a gentle man, just and undeviatingly consistent."
Hentoff took to heart the words from his mentor, I. F. "Izzy" Stone, the
renowned investigative journalist who died in 1989: "If you're in this
business because you want to change the world, get another day job. If you
are able to make a difference, it will come incrementally, and you might
not even know about it. You have to get the story and keep on it because
it has to be told."
Nat Hentoff has earned the well-deserved reputation of being one of our
nation's most respected, controversial and uncompromising writers. He
began his career at the Village Voice because he wanted a place to write
freely on anything he cared about. And his departure from the publication
has neither dampened his zeal nor tempered his voice.
Hentoff, whose new book, At the Jazz Band Ball—Sixty Years on the Jazz
Scene (University of California Press), is due out in 2010, took some time
to speak with me about Barack Obama, the danger of his health care plan,
the peril of civil liberties, and a host of other issues.
John W. Whitehead: When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he
introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he
has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?
Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the
most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is
ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the
way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system.
If the American people have their health care paid for by the government,
depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a
health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives
are worth living much longer.
In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he
would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his
promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA
renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be
interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore?
Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine
which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush
administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought
might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the
case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though
he promised not to.
So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a
phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he
will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a
very dangerous mindset for a president to have.
JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?
NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little
qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he
lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on
people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were
led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense,
"evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms
of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the
University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing
weakens the Constitution.
In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The
Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the
National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of
everything we do on the phone and on the internet. Obama has done nothing
about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial
supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.
JW: Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in
light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is
that?
NH: I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced
by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has
taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't
think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom
they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course,
that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They
are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change.
Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama
are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."
JW: Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what
some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?
NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care
bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a
certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their
end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was
done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them. The
death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be
the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote
a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.
In England, you have what I would call government-imposed euthanasia.
Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides
whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government
should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not
doing it and you gradually or suddenly die. The present Stimulus Bill sets
up the equivalent commission in the United States similar to that which is
in England. The tipoff was months ago on the ABC network. President Obama
was given a full hour to describe and endorse his health plan. A woman in
the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101
years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor
didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and
told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked
President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said
we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation. He said I would
advise her to take a pain killer. That is the essence of the President of
the United States.
JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?
NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except
to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in
his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone—both a constitutional backbone
and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us
a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally
because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has
scared me in terms of my lifespan.
JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people
believe things just by his personality.
NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted
for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people
voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this
country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him
and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could
elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on.
Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the
black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are
wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for
the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be
sinking in.
JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among
African-Americans.
NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for
a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching
stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual,
the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are
going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This
is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the
unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I
can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.
JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government
does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them
anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has
criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?
NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel
Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did
in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had
Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We
need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is
what is happening with the Tea Parties. I wrote a column called "The
Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for
themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout
the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot
of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they
are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.
JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test
while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions
are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote
the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is
basically dead.
NH: I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on
education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William
Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the
words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?" Well, it is
not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell
them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of
Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern
in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with
each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.
Young people get very excited when they hear why they are Americans. It is
not hard to do. We hear talk now about reforming public education. There
are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard
Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic
illiteracy in the country.
JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.
NH: A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of
Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment.
I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One
student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe
these are bright students.
JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name
the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.
NH: That is a stunner.
JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than
it was then?
NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone
too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in
America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government
knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The
government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen
in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a
long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say,
and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the
technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.
JW: You don't sound very optimistic.
NH: If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and
they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize
the country.
The media has been very bad about informing us about what is going on.
They focus on surface things. They do not focus enough on the fact that
the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to
transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on. But
I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why
you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because
we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who
are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And
we need to encourage others to become involved.
Outlook for Senate Health Bill Grim: Senators
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 14, 2009
The two steadiest non-GOP votes against the senate health care bill reaffirmed this weekend that attempts at compromise so far have not won their support, and that the prospects for the bill continue to grow dimmer as time passes. While one Democrat senator claimed that there was, to the contrary, "tremendous momentum" behind the bill, the latest voter poll shows opposition holding a steady majority among American voters.
"The opposition to it has been growing as the week has gone on," Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday. "There are not 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate now."
Lieberman, who normally caucuses with the Democrats, has consistently opposed any version of a public option in the bill, a feature some liberal senators consider essential.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) also painted a grim picture for those striving to win his "yes" vote, reiterating his position against the abortion mandate to "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. "I said I can't support the bill with the abortion language that's there," he said, noting that finding an adequate compromise would be "a tall order."
Nelson and Lieberman's opposition has Democrat leadership scrambling to find enough votes to scuttle a Republican filibuster on the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last Tuesday evening claimed that Democrats had reached a "broad agreement" on the health reform legislation. However, subsequent interviews with senators such as Sen. Nelson indicated that the parties involved merely agreed to send the new language to the Congressional Budget Office for a fiscal evaluation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky affirmed, also on Face the Nation, that Senate Republicans were united against the health care bill, which he called a "monstrosity." However, he said that on the Democratic side there is no such unity of position.
"It's noteworthy that you had to have three Democrats on to explain the Democratic position," McConnell said. "There are more Democratic positions than you'd find in a stack of newspapers, [and] therein lies the problem."
West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller gave a cheerier outlook on the bill, insisting that it has "tremendous momentum." "It's not hard for me to feel optimistic. I do," Rockefeller said, "because history calls on us."
A Rasmussen poll gauging public opinion on the health care bill this weekend shows voters holding the line against it: 56% said they oppose the plan, while 40% favored it.
In the same poll, President Obama's approval ratings plummeted to a new low, with 24% of voters reporting they "strongly approve" of Obama's performance, while 42% "strongly disapprove."
Last week, Democrat Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa announced he supported altering Senate filibuster rules to ease passage of the bill by eliminating the 60-vote requirement.
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 14, 2009
The two steadiest non-GOP votes against the senate health care bill reaffirmed this weekend that attempts at compromise so far have not won their support, and that the prospects for the bill continue to grow dimmer as time passes. While one Democrat senator claimed that there was, to the contrary, "tremendous momentum" behind the bill, the latest voter poll shows opposition holding a steady majority among American voters.
"The opposition to it has been growing as the week has gone on," Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday. "There are not 60 votes for health care reform in the Senate now."
Lieberman, who normally caucuses with the Democrats, has consistently opposed any version of a public option in the bill, a feature some liberal senators consider essential.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) also painted a grim picture for those striving to win his "yes" vote, reiterating his position against the abortion mandate to "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. "I said I can't support the bill with the abortion language that's there," he said, noting that finding an adequate compromise would be "a tall order."
Nelson and Lieberman's opposition has Democrat leadership scrambling to find enough votes to scuttle a Republican filibuster on the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last Tuesday evening claimed that Democrats had reached a "broad agreement" on the health reform legislation. However, subsequent interviews with senators such as Sen. Nelson indicated that the parties involved merely agreed to send the new language to the Congressional Budget Office for a fiscal evaluation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky affirmed, also on Face the Nation, that Senate Republicans were united against the health care bill, which he called a "monstrosity." However, he said that on the Democratic side there is no such unity of position.
"It's noteworthy that you had to have three Democrats on to explain the Democratic position," McConnell said. "There are more Democratic positions than you'd find in a stack of newspapers, [and] therein lies the problem."
West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller gave a cheerier outlook on the bill, insisting that it has "tremendous momentum." "It's not hard for me to feel optimistic. I do," Rockefeller said, "because history calls on us."
A Rasmussen poll gauging public opinion on the health care bill this weekend shows voters holding the line against it: 56% said they oppose the plan, while 40% favored it.
In the same poll, President Obama's approval ratings plummeted to a new low, with 24% of voters reporting they "strongly approve" of Obama's performance, while 42% "strongly disapprove."
Last week, Democrat Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa announced he supported altering Senate filibuster rules to ease passage of the bill by eliminating the 60-vote requirement.
The Health Care Bill--latest report
By Steve Jalsevac
So the outlook for the Senate Health Care bill is grim say some of the US Senators. Many are hoping that is true, but Americans have been repeatedly warned by pro-life, pro-family organization leaders not to underestimate the resolve and deviousness of the Obama administration. That is, hard work against the bill cannot let up until the issue is resolved.
The bill passed on Sunday in the US Senate confirms the Democrats' fanatical commitment to abortion. They will continue to relentlessly pursue their agenda.
Take a few minutes to watch the video of Laura Ingraham questioning the Financial Post's Diane Francis about her advocacy of a planetary one-child policy like China's. Ingraham is superb and Francis reveals herself to be a coldly pragmatic, non-comprehending, Ayn Rand type of super capitalist. These dangerous elitists, who are obviously sincere, feel that only they know what is best and must be imposed on everyone - regardless of any great personal suffering that may result. We are all widgets, not souls.
Communism and super capitalism meet in totalitarianism - one openly so and the other quietly backing totalitarian regimes with their money and power. That is why Francis and many other western elitists, such as Maurice Strong and many at the UN, admire Communist China. It gets things done fast, makes lots of money, is super business smart and does not get bogged down by the inefficiencies and delays caused by democracy, human rights laws and religious principles preaching the dignity of every person.
Kevin Jennings is just one example of the truly scary people that President Obama has around him. Never in my life have I ever seen such a collection of dark natured people put into the administration of a western government at one time.
Yes, the large majority of you want to say and hear "Merry Christmas". Say it and the more you do, the more you will find others will do the same. In most cases it will be a relief for people to hear you say it. It will create a ripple wave, spreading the true loving spirit of Christmas that most people want to spread, but are often afraid to.
Over the years we have repeatedly heard complaints and concerns expressed to us about the US bishops' Catholic News Service. We don't often quote CNS or refer to it simply because its reports often seem too politically correct, liberal Catholic, or are just not what they should be. Sometimes they are downright disturbing. It's too bad since such a national Catholic news service is fundamentally a good idea. It just depends on who runs it and especially who is overseeing its Catholicity. Louie Verrecchio of Baltimore has been concerned about this for some time. Hopefully his article will encourage major reform of that institution.
The US bishops recently said that they are working on a new policy and framework to ensure that information services that call themselves Catholic are authentically so and held accountable. It's a great idea that we support. CNS could be their first project. And then there is the National Catholic Reporter, the Jesuits America magazine, the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting. etc., etc.
So the outlook for the Senate Health Care bill is grim say some of the US Senators. Many are hoping that is true, but Americans have been repeatedly warned by pro-life, pro-family organization leaders not to underestimate the resolve and deviousness of the Obama administration. That is, hard work against the bill cannot let up until the issue is resolved.
The bill passed on Sunday in the US Senate confirms the Democrats' fanatical commitment to abortion. They will continue to relentlessly pursue their agenda.
Take a few minutes to watch the video of Laura Ingraham questioning the Financial Post's Diane Francis about her advocacy of a planetary one-child policy like China's. Ingraham is superb and Francis reveals herself to be a coldly pragmatic, non-comprehending, Ayn Rand type of super capitalist. These dangerous elitists, who are obviously sincere, feel that only they know what is best and must be imposed on everyone - regardless of any great personal suffering that may result. We are all widgets, not souls.
Communism and super capitalism meet in totalitarianism - one openly so and the other quietly backing totalitarian regimes with their money and power. That is why Francis and many other western elitists, such as Maurice Strong and many at the UN, admire Communist China. It gets things done fast, makes lots of money, is super business smart and does not get bogged down by the inefficiencies and delays caused by democracy, human rights laws and religious principles preaching the dignity of every person.
Kevin Jennings is just one example of the truly scary people that President Obama has around him. Never in my life have I ever seen such a collection of dark natured people put into the administration of a western government at one time.
Yes, the large majority of you want to say and hear "Merry Christmas". Say it and the more you do, the more you will find others will do the same. In most cases it will be a relief for people to hear you say it. It will create a ripple wave, spreading the true loving spirit of Christmas that most people want to spread, but are often afraid to.
Over the years we have repeatedly heard complaints and concerns expressed to us about the US bishops' Catholic News Service. We don't often quote CNS or refer to it simply because its reports often seem too politically correct, liberal Catholic, or are just not what they should be. Sometimes they are downright disturbing. It's too bad since such a national Catholic news service is fundamentally a good idea. It just depends on who runs it and especially who is overseeing its Catholicity. Louie Verrecchio of Baltimore has been concerned about this for some time. Hopefully his article will encourage major reform of that institution.
The US bishops recently said that they are working on a new policy and framework to ensure that information services that call themselves Catholic are authentically so and held accountable. It's a great idea that we support. CNS could be their first project. And then there is the National Catholic Reporter, the Jesuits America magazine, the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting. etc., etc.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The True meaning of the 2nd Amendment
The founders expected the individual State militias to keep their citizens armed just as the Swiss. We need to return to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment....now!
Pray to God and keep the power dry! Swiss gun control
Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. Our second amendment on steriods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
Pray to God and keep the power dry! Swiss gun control
Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. Our second amendment on steriods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Spanish King Faces Excommunication if He Assents to Abortion Bill
Good for you, Spain! If only we in America would threaten Obama the same way.
Royal assent could plunge Spain into Constitutional Crisis
By Hilary White
The Spanish press is highlighting the dilemma faced by Juan Carlos, king of Spain, a Catholic, who may be called upon to sign into law a bill that, if passed, would further liberalize abortion. On November 25th, Spain's Catholic bishops warned that those politicians who vote in favor of the law will have excommunicated themselves, having put themselves in an "objective state of sin." The bishops wrote that "while the situation lasts," politicians who vote in favor of the law "may not be admitted to Holy Communion." However, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 stipulates that new laws must be promulgated by the king, who is head of state, but who now faces possible excommunication if he gives royal assent to the bill.Prominent Spanish Catholics are calling on the king to refuse to sign the law. In an article appearing on the website Religion en Libertad, titled, "The King should not sign the abortion law," the head of the lobby group HazteOir, Nacho Arsuaga, said the country could be heading for a constitutional crisis over the bill. "The king of a democratic state under the law cannot sign a law approving the right of a few to kill other human beings. With this law, the government is de facto destroying the validity of the Spanish constitution, which stipulates in its Article 15 the right to life." Arsuaga called on the king either to refuse to sign or to abdicate. Javier Maria Perez-Roldan, president of the Thomas More Law Center, said that the law would "contradict the principle of monarchy," which "loses all authority if it is exercised against the common good." Arsuaga's article quotes politicians and the heads of a number of Catholic organizations who have called on the king to abdicate in imitation of King Baudouin of Belgium, who in 1990 temporarily renounced his throne rather than sign his country's law liberalizing abortion. They also cited the more recent case of Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who refused last year to sign the duchy's law legalizing euthanasia and who may be stripped of his constitutional powers as a result. Milian Manuel Mestre, a businessman and politician and Member of the Congress of Deputies, called it "incomprehensible from the ethical point of view," that the government could pass a law that establishes abortion as a right. "As a believer and a citizen of this country it does not seem appropriate for the King to sign into law the Act ... Neither the king nor the government nor the Spanish Courts may violate principles of fundamental ethics," Mestre said. But the editor of the weekly Alba, Gonzalo Altozano, warned not to expect heroics from Juan Carlos. When, in 2005, the Zapatero government created "gay marriage," the king responded, "I'm not the king of Belgium" and displayed no hesitation in signing the bill. Altozano writes, "He was right: Juan Carlos is not Baldwin [Baudouin]. It is, simply, Juan Carlos. Do not expect any heroics from him. No longer."Juan Carlos was born in Rome, where the Spanish royal family had settled following the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic in 1931. He succeeded the dictator Franco as head of state and was enthroned as king in 1975. The family's close connection to the Catholic Church is a tradition dating back centuries, and Juan Carlos' wife, Queen Sofia, in an authorized biography, recently denounced abortion, saying she was "absolutely against" it as well as euthanasia, and "gay marriage."Nevertheless, it was King Juan Carlos himself who instituted the "liberal" political and social reforms in Spain following the death of Franco. Under his rule, leftist groups and movements, such as the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Spain, which had been defeated in the Spanish Civil War, were legalized and legitimized.
Royal assent could plunge Spain into Constitutional Crisis
By Hilary White
The Spanish press is highlighting the dilemma faced by Juan Carlos, king of Spain, a Catholic, who may be called upon to sign into law a bill that, if passed, would further liberalize abortion. On November 25th, Spain's Catholic bishops warned that those politicians who vote in favor of the law will have excommunicated themselves, having put themselves in an "objective state of sin." The bishops wrote that "while the situation lasts," politicians who vote in favor of the law "may not be admitted to Holy Communion." However, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 stipulates that new laws must be promulgated by the king, who is head of state, but who now faces possible excommunication if he gives royal assent to the bill.Prominent Spanish Catholics are calling on the king to refuse to sign the law. In an article appearing on the website Religion en Libertad, titled, "The King should not sign the abortion law," the head of the lobby group HazteOir, Nacho Arsuaga, said the country could be heading for a constitutional crisis over the bill. "The king of a democratic state under the law cannot sign a law approving the right of a few to kill other human beings. With this law, the government is de facto destroying the validity of the Spanish constitution, which stipulates in its Article 15 the right to life." Arsuaga called on the king either to refuse to sign or to abdicate. Javier Maria Perez-Roldan, president of the Thomas More Law Center, said that the law would "contradict the principle of monarchy," which "loses all authority if it is exercised against the common good." Arsuaga's article quotes politicians and the heads of a number of Catholic organizations who have called on the king to abdicate in imitation of King Baudouin of Belgium, who in 1990 temporarily renounced his throne rather than sign his country's law liberalizing abortion. They also cited the more recent case of Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who refused last year to sign the duchy's law legalizing euthanasia and who may be stripped of his constitutional powers as a result. Milian Manuel Mestre, a businessman and politician and Member of the Congress of Deputies, called it "incomprehensible from the ethical point of view," that the government could pass a law that establishes abortion as a right. "As a believer and a citizen of this country it does not seem appropriate for the King to sign into law the Act ... Neither the king nor the government nor the Spanish Courts may violate principles of fundamental ethics," Mestre said. But the editor of the weekly Alba, Gonzalo Altozano, warned not to expect heroics from Juan Carlos. When, in 2005, the Zapatero government created "gay marriage," the king responded, "I'm not the king of Belgium" and displayed no hesitation in signing the bill. Altozano writes, "He was right: Juan Carlos is not Baldwin [Baudouin]. It is, simply, Juan Carlos. Do not expect any heroics from him. No longer."Juan Carlos was born in Rome, where the Spanish royal family had settled following the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic in 1931. He succeeded the dictator Franco as head of state and was enthroned as king in 1975. The family's close connection to the Catholic Church is a tradition dating back centuries, and Juan Carlos' wife, Queen Sofia, in an authorized biography, recently denounced abortion, saying she was "absolutely against" it as well as euthanasia, and "gay marriage."Nevertheless, it was King Juan Carlos himself who instituted the "liberal" political and social reforms in Spain following the death of Franco. Under his rule, leftist groups and movements, such as the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Spain, which had been defeated in the Spanish Civil War, were legalized and legitimized.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Are the Jews are still God's people today?
This was written when I was questioned on my post on "Our opinions Concerneing Israel."
This is the reply:
The nation of Israel was chosen to bring the Savior into the world. Jesus had to be born somewhere in some nation, so it only made sense that God would create a nation whose laws and traditions would serve to prepare the world for Christ. It would make no sense for the Savior of the world to be born into a pagan home that worshipped false gods, would it? So, God chose Abraham and made his seed into a nation. National election of the Jews was merely PROVISIONAL - it was a temporary arrangement so Christ could be born to Abraham's seed as promised. But, being a servant of God was NEVER based upon ethnicity. Men are not acceptible based upon race or physical descent. What makes anybody acceptible to God is the obedience of faith. Thus, Paul says "For he is NOT a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart" (Rom. 2:28, 29).So, here Paul expressly states that being a Jew does not mean one can trace physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but a "Jew" is an obedient, servant of God based upon faith. He repeats this in Romans 9:7, 8, saying, "Neither, becaue they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall they seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Here, Paul says lineal descent from Abraham does not make a person Abraham's seed or a child of God. Only in Christ are we the seed and do we obtain the status of being children and heirs of God and eternal life.The verses you cite showing the Jews were God's people, were all from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has been annulled by the cross of Christ. Today, all men are viewed equally by God and all must come to grace exactly the same way. God does not have two covenants, one for the Jews and another for the rest of mankind. The promise of salvation was made to Adam and Eve before there were any Jews and the promise was for all men.Yes, any unbeliever who denies Christ is an antichrist, regardless of race or nation. My only point in saying the Jews were antichrist was to dispell the fallacy that they are somewhow God's chosen people today after rejecting God, murdering his son, and persecuting his church and gospel. The Jews rejected God and he rejected them and destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 in vengeance and wrath. What God has done, let not man undo! We should not support any nation, Jew or Muslim, that is an enemy of Christ.
This is the reply:
The nation of Israel was chosen to bring the Savior into the world. Jesus had to be born somewhere in some nation, so it only made sense that God would create a nation whose laws and traditions would serve to prepare the world for Christ. It would make no sense for the Savior of the world to be born into a pagan home that worshipped false gods, would it? So, God chose Abraham and made his seed into a nation. National election of the Jews was merely PROVISIONAL - it was a temporary arrangement so Christ could be born to Abraham's seed as promised. But, being a servant of God was NEVER based upon ethnicity. Men are not acceptible based upon race or physical descent. What makes anybody acceptible to God is the obedience of faith. Thus, Paul says "For he is NOT a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart" (Rom. 2:28, 29).So, here Paul expressly states that being a Jew does not mean one can trace physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but a "Jew" is an obedient, servant of God based upon faith. He repeats this in Romans 9:7, 8, saying, "Neither, becaue they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall they seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Here, Paul says lineal descent from Abraham does not make a person Abraham's seed or a child of God. Only in Christ are we the seed and do we obtain the status of being children and heirs of God and eternal life.The verses you cite showing the Jews were God's people, were all from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has been annulled by the cross of Christ. Today, all men are viewed equally by God and all must come to grace exactly the same way. God does not have two covenants, one for the Jews and another for the rest of mankind. The promise of salvation was made to Adam and Eve before there were any Jews and the promise was for all men.Yes, any unbeliever who denies Christ is an antichrist, regardless of race or nation. My only point in saying the Jews were antichrist was to dispell the fallacy that they are somewhow God's chosen people today after rejecting God, murdering his son, and persecuting his church and gospel. The Jews rejected God and he rejected them and destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 in vengeance and wrath. What God has done, let not man undo! We should not support any nation, Jew or Muslim, that is an enemy of Christ.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Michigan ought to be burned to the ground!
Americans went to war over taxes and etc when we won't lift a finger over little innocents being murdered!
By James Tillman
DETROIT, December 4, 2009
Northland "Family Planning Centers" of Michigan are now advertising their services with a video calling abortion "sacred work."
Set to soft, upbeat piano music and themed with pink pastel shades, a recently uploaded video entitled "Every Day, Good Woman Choose Abortion," assures prospective customers that deciding "to have an abortion is a normal experience," and that the decision is a good decision. The video's spokeswoman continues: "Goodness is courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that are good for yourself."
"Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom."
The staff at Northland, the narrator continues, believe in the "essential goodness" of abortion. The narrator speaks of a sign hanging at the Northland abortion facility that reads: "We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here, bring only love."
The video showcases a quotation from the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller, which states: "Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all."
Northland abortion mills have been previously connected with the "November Gang" group of abortionists. The "November Gang" is set apart from other anti-life organizations by their use of pre- and post-abortion "counseling" sessions that ape the language and techniques used in pro-life movements like Project Rachel. In practice, this means November Gang groups are more willing to admit that abortion kills a baby.
This leads to bizarre practices in some facilities such as baptizing and praying over a baby's bloody remains, or admitting that abortion kills but anticipating God's forgiveness before the fact. The Northland website, in its section on emotional healing, advises women to write a letter "to the spirit of the child inside of them."
It continues: "Some women write how they came to their decision, some ask for forgiveness. Some thank the spirit for the wisdom or thoughts they have had about life. Some write about the love they feel. Sometimes, having a way to say goodbye is an important part of healing."
The website also advises women "to create your own way to acknowledge your loss or changes. It may be as simple as releasing a symbolic object into the water, planting a tree or writing a poem. It would be a way for you to memorialize the day and move forward."
The videos are just the latest attempts by Northland to make abortion seem as attractive as possible. In 2000 the New York Times reported that Renee Chelian, founder of the Northland abortion center, needed something special to draw customers in the face of stiff competition; and so "she created almost a spa-like atmosphere at her offices, with low light in the rooms, aromatherapy, candles and relaxing music."
"As altruistic as women and feminists want to be, the reality is that we can only stay in business if we earn enough to keep our doors open," Chelian said in the article.
The narrator in the recently released video goes on to say: "If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself, and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.
"You are a good woman, doing the best you can in your situation."
By James Tillman
DETROIT, December 4, 2009
Northland "Family Planning Centers" of Michigan are now advertising their services with a video calling abortion "sacred work."
Set to soft, upbeat piano music and themed with pink pastel shades, a recently uploaded video entitled "Every Day, Good Woman Choose Abortion," assures prospective customers that deciding "to have an abortion is a normal experience," and that the decision is a good decision. The video's spokeswoman continues: "Goodness is courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that are good for yourself."
"Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom."
The staff at Northland, the narrator continues, believe in the "essential goodness" of abortion. The narrator speaks of a sign hanging at the Northland abortion facility that reads: "We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here, bring only love."
The video showcases a quotation from the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller, which states: "Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all."
Northland abortion mills have been previously connected with the "November Gang" group of abortionists. The "November Gang" is set apart from other anti-life organizations by their use of pre- and post-abortion "counseling" sessions that ape the language and techniques used in pro-life movements like Project Rachel. In practice, this means November Gang groups are more willing to admit that abortion kills a baby.
This leads to bizarre practices in some facilities such as baptizing and praying over a baby's bloody remains, or admitting that abortion kills but anticipating God's forgiveness before the fact. The Northland website, in its section on emotional healing, advises women to write a letter "to the spirit of the child inside of them."
It continues: "Some women write how they came to their decision, some ask for forgiveness. Some thank the spirit for the wisdom or thoughts they have had about life. Some write about the love they feel. Sometimes, having a way to say goodbye is an important part of healing."
The website also advises women "to create your own way to acknowledge your loss or changes. It may be as simple as releasing a symbolic object into the water, planting a tree or writing a poem. It would be a way for you to memorialize the day and move forward."
The videos are just the latest attempts by Northland to make abortion seem as attractive as possible. In 2000 the New York Times reported that Renee Chelian, founder of the Northland abortion center, needed something special to draw customers in the face of stiff competition; and so "she created almost a spa-like atmosphere at her offices, with low light in the rooms, aromatherapy, candles and relaxing music."
"As altruistic as women and feminists want to be, the reality is that we can only stay in business if we earn enough to keep our doors open," Chelian said in the article.
The narrator in the recently released video goes on to say: "If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself, and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.
"You are a good woman, doing the best you can in your situation."
HOOORRAY for Kansas, my home! Good for you! Abortionist Carhart Abandons Plans for Late-term Abortion Facility in Kansas
Abortionist Carhart Abandons Plans for Late-term Abortion Facility in Kansas
By James Tillman
WICHITA, KS, December 4, 2009
Operation Rescue has confirmed that abortionist LeRoy Cahart will not open a late-term abortion facility to replace the one that closed in Wichita after abortionist George Tiller's death.
"I'm thinking we may not go ahead and develop that down there" Carhart told a source connected with Operation Rescue. "I think we are just going to stay in Nebraska for now."
Carhart, who does abortions out of Bellevue, Nebraska, had announced that he would do late-term abortions at the Wichita Women's Health Care Services after Tiller was murdered, but Tiller's family instead decided to close the facility permanently. Since then Carhart had on different occasions told the media he would open a late-term abortion center in or near Wichita, before eventually being forced to abandon his plans.
"This is a win, win, win situation," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "It is a win for Operation Rescue's 'Keep it Closed' campaign because it accomplished its goal of keeping Carhart out of Kansas. It is a win for the people of Kansas who are weary of being the national focus of the abortion debate. But most importantly, it is a win for the babies."
Carhart has begun to use his Bellevue, Nebraska abortion mill to perform some of the late-term abortions Tiller used to receive, some as late as 30 weeks of gestation, according to Operation Rescue. But his decision to do so has not been free of difficulty; according to the New York Times, several of his employees quit after he said he was expanding his work. Furthermore, Carhart has said that only ten percent of the post-viability abortions Tiller used to receive have followed him to Nebraska.
"During our efforts in Kansas, there was a 54 percent decrease in post-viability abortions at Tiller's clinic where Carhart worked. Now, out of that remaining 46 percent, Carhart is only doing a small fraction," said Newman.
"By running Carhart out of Kansas, we have helped put a huge dent in the nation's late-term abortion business. That means babies will have an opportunity at life that they would not have had if Carhart had simply picked up where Tiller left off."
By James Tillman
WICHITA, KS, December 4, 2009
Operation Rescue has confirmed that abortionist LeRoy Cahart will not open a late-term abortion facility to replace the one that closed in Wichita after abortionist George Tiller's death.
"I'm thinking we may not go ahead and develop that down there" Carhart told a source connected with Operation Rescue. "I think we are just going to stay in Nebraska for now."
Carhart, who does abortions out of Bellevue, Nebraska, had announced that he would do late-term abortions at the Wichita Women's Health Care Services after Tiller was murdered, but Tiller's family instead decided to close the facility permanently. Since then Carhart had on different occasions told the media he would open a late-term abortion center in or near Wichita, before eventually being forced to abandon his plans.
"This is a win, win, win situation," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "It is a win for Operation Rescue's 'Keep it Closed' campaign because it accomplished its goal of keeping Carhart out of Kansas. It is a win for the people of Kansas who are weary of being the national focus of the abortion debate. But most importantly, it is a win for the babies."
Carhart has begun to use his Bellevue, Nebraska abortion mill to perform some of the late-term abortions Tiller used to receive, some as late as 30 weeks of gestation, according to Operation Rescue. But his decision to do so has not been free of difficulty; according to the New York Times, several of his employees quit after he said he was expanding his work. Furthermore, Carhart has said that only ten percent of the post-viability abortions Tiller used to receive have followed him to Nebraska.
"During our efforts in Kansas, there was a 54 percent decrease in post-viability abortions at Tiller's clinic where Carhart worked. Now, out of that remaining 46 percent, Carhart is only doing a small fraction," said Newman.
"By running Carhart out of Kansas, we have helped put a huge dent in the nation's late-term abortion business. That means babies will have an opportunity at life that they would not have had if Carhart had simply picked up where Tiller left off."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
